Dougie Hamilton III

[Dr Quincy]

So you're saying it makes long term fundamental sense organizationally to move on from young players just as they're coming into their own? I mean, how many times can you hear the same old crap from this organization before you call ********? Kessel didn't want to be here and didn't work hard enough. Seguin didn't work hard enough and didn't want to play for the coach the way he requires. Hamilton didn't want to be here and didn't want to play the way the coach wanted. At what point do you have to turn the mirror inward and do some self introspection?

The stats provided above are all fine and good, but how do they compare to the rest of the team? Crunch those as well and then you'll have a far more context with regards to what those numbers really mean. As a standalone, those numbers are virtually meaningless.

Look, the B's D is worse this year than it was last year, and it was worse last year than the year before. There's no sugarcoating that.

To me the 1st essential question about what to do about that was to ask:

Do we want to allocate the cap to invest in Dougie Hamilton to be the anchor of our D over the next 5-7 years? I don't think he's a guy to do that with.

The 2nd question is Did they get enough for him? No. I criticize Dougie for not being great, but I'll admit he's very good. I don't think he'll ever be "the guy" on a top team, but nobody else on the B's D is that either (Chara is not that guy any more). They should have gotten more for him, but perhaps there is something to him not wanting to be here.

The 3rd question is: Do we deal Chara? If things aren't looking good at American Thanksgiving or in early 2016.. yup deal him.

This is a bridge year, and bridge years hurt, but the transition to the next core had to start sometime. It sucks that they've had 3 early 1st round picks in the last 10 years and none of them are on the team any more, but that's why Chia is gone.

My final question is: How much blame should Neely be getting for some of this?

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

Kessel worked out beautifully, right up until they in turn dumped the return for him for scraps, you mean, right? And then they did it again with the Hamilton move. Hard to say dumping emerging NHL talent for futures is a smart move, IMO. They got lucky once with Seguin, but that doesn't mean they're going to hit with the pick they got for Hammy, and they got weaker for at least 2-3 years to boot.

lmao at the irony of you arguing that it was a mistake to trade Hamilton by invoking the Kessel trade and saying it was "for scraps" when Hamilton was part of the return for Kessel.

Rehashing the 5+ year old Kessel trade would be idiotic at this point, but to try and say that he was traded "for scraps" is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've read on this board. Even if we did "get lucky" with those picks we still got two 1sts and a 2nd for him, hardly scraps. And the "luck" part of it is overblown. The Leafs were a bad team. Those were going to be good picks whether they were top 2 or not.

 

[DKH]

Look, the B's D is worse this year than it was last year, and it was worse last year than the year before. There's no sugarcoating that.

To me the 1st essential question about what to do about that was to ask:

Do we want to allocate the cap to invest in Dougie Hamilton to be the anchor of our D over the next 5-7 years? I don't think he's a guy to do that with.

The 2nd question is Did they get enough for him? No. I criticize Dougie for not being great, but I'll admit he's very good. I don't think he'll ever be "the guy" on a top team, but nobody else on the B's D is that either (Chara is not that guy any more). They should have gotten more for him, but perhaps there is something to him not wanting to be here.

The 3rd question is: Do we deal Chara? If things aren't looking good at American Thanksgiving or in early 2016.. yup deal him.

This is a bridge year, and bridge years hurt, but the transition to the next core had to start sometime. It sucks that they've had 3 early 1st round picks in the last 10 years and none of them are on the team any more, but that's why Chia is gone.

My final question is: How much blame should Neely be getting for some of this?

I know one thing I'm giving Neely kudos for is not allowing Chiarelli trying to save his job to trade the first rounder, Krug, and Spooner and make that horrific Coyotes deal that was all but done till he stepped in

 

[BB88]

We get Juolevi next year and our D group is set for 10+ years with that.
Zboril-Juolevi
Krug-Carlo
O'Gara-Colin Miller
Lauzon-Arnesson
Grzelcyk
With that we'd have one of the best if not the best D prospect pool in the league and we build around Zboril-(Juolevi).

Zboril sounds interesting D player and he should fit with us much better than Hamilton did, Jacub "strongest kid in the Q" Zboril.

But the question is how do we survive the next 4-5 years, we are missing a top pairing D and Chara has 3years left max on the 1st pairing, what's our 1st pairing going to look like in a few years, we want to be contenders soon and for a long time, we can't expect any of our prospects to be truly ready in that time, maybe Chychrun we could expect but that is a long shot.
I've said it before but right now I'd gladly take Yandle on a 4-5year deal and run with that, be potential longterm contenders.
Yandle+Senyshyn+Lauzon+JFK instead of Hamilton.

 

[LSCII]

He wasn't simply better against weaker teams, we was outright lousy against good teams.

And again, that in a vacuum looks bad, but how did his peers fair versus the good and bad teams, and how did the team overall do? That's what you seem to be missing. Saying the guy was bad is one thing, but it's relative to how the rest of the team did. If they all were statistically worse what does that tell you? If they were all statistically better, then it means your supposition is correct. But without those numbers, you're making no point at all other than saying the same continually without any definitive proof one way or the other. Do you get that? Without the context, the numbers are not only useless, they're irrelevant. It's like the NFL trying to prove balls were deflated with no definitive starting point. You and the doc may well be right, but what can you prove with only one set of stats?

 

[bob27]

We get Juolevi next year and our D group is set for 10+ years with that.
Zboril-Juolevi
Krug-Carlo
O'Gara-Colin Miller
Lauzon-Arnesson
Grzelcyk
With that we'd have one of the best if not the best D prospect pool in the league and we build around Zboril-(Juolevi).

So, every D prospect is going to pan out. Boy, that's some optimism . I'd be pleased if one or two of those will play 100+ games with the Bruins. You have to remember that Mark Stuart and Dougie Hamilton are the only active defensemen Bruins have drafted that have become respectable NHL players. The third best active defenceman they've drafted is Matt Hunwick, then maybe Trotman? After that I don't think there's anyone else still playing in the NHL.

 

[BB88]

So, every D prospect is going to pan out. Boy, that's some optimism . I'd be pleased if one or two of those will play 100+ games with the Bruins. You have to remember that Mark Stuart and Dougie Hamilton are the only active defensemen Bruins have drafted that have become respectable NHL players. The third best active defenceman they've drafted is Matt Hunwick, then maybe Trotman? After that I don't think there's anyone else still playing in the NHL.

Where did I say everyone will pan out?
That has strong depth to survive and cover for when prospects bust. I had 9 examples on that list, you can't play 9 D's in a game. I wrote D prospect pool.

If we go with "safe" picks who should make it then atleast 3 of Krug-Zboril-O'Gara, Carlo, Colin should pay for us and play for us for a long time, and wouldn't be too surprised to see everyone of those up.
I don't care how our draft has been in the past, if you notice it has improved a lot lately, heinen/pasta examples from last years.

Krug, Krecji, Lucic, Bergeron, Marchand steals also, we've had talent but we sucked for awhile but now it's looking better.

 

[Dr Quincy]

And again, that in a vacuum looks bad, but how did his peers fair versus the good and bad teams, and how did the team overall do? That's what you seem to be missing. Saying the guy was bad is one thing, but it's relative to how the rest of the team did. If they all were statistically worse what does that tell you? If they were all statistically better, then it means your supposition is correct. But without those numbers, you're making no point at all other than saying the same continually without any definitive proof one way or the other. Do you get that? Without the context, the numbers are not only useless, they're irrelevant. It's like the NFL trying to prove balls were deflated with no definitive starting point. You and the doc may well be right, but what can you prove with only one set of stats?

Just did a quick look at Seidenberg's #s during that stretch. Yup he was bad too.

Those 1st 20 games:
1g, 1a -4 against non-Buff, Tor and Edm
1g, 3a +7 in those 5 games against Buff, Tor and Edm

But Krug was very good against the good teams:

2g, 4a, +5 in those same games that Hamilton was 1g,1a, -9

Krug didn't dominate as much as Hamilton against those 3 weak teams, but he was much better against Montreal and StL for example.

Now of course Hamilton probably got the tough match-ups while Krug was sheltered. But that's kind of the point:

Hamilton isn't a top notch 1st pairing guy. Put him up against good opposition and he gets eaten up. He can grow his game and get better and maybe some day can handle that assignment, and on a very deep Flames group he probably will be great.

But you can't build a D corps around him.

 

[wintersej]

Just did a quick look at Seidenberg's #s during that stretch. Yup he was bad too.

Those 1st 20 games:
1g, 1a -4 against non-Buff, Tor and Edm
1g, 3a +7 in those 5 games against Buff, Tor and Edm

But Krug was very good against the good teams:

2g, 4a, +5 in those same games that Hamilton was 1g,1a, -9

Krug didn't dominate as much as Hamilton against those 3 weak teams, but he was much better against Montreal and StL for example.

Now of course Hamilton probably got the tough match-ups while Krug was sheltered. But that's kind of the point:

Hamilton isn't a top notch 1st pairing guy. Put him up against good opposition and he gets eaten up. He can grow his game and get better and maybe some day can handle that assignment, and on a very deep Flames group he probably will be great.

But you can't build a D corps around him.

I'd argue you can't build a D corps around him yet, but it remains to be seen if that is the case 5 years from now when he is closer to his prime. His ideal situation right now is something like he has in Calgary...go put up points on the second pairing.

It killed me that the Bruins kept playing Hamilton with Chara. I guess they were trying to speed up his development on the D side of things, but I would have let him lead an offensive minded second pairing.

 

[BNHL]

We all saw Hamilton make mindless,boneheaded unpressured errors. That's the big red flag for me. Mixed in with his great play is some dumfounding dumbness.

 

[ChargersRookie]

Where did I say everyone will pan out?
That has strong depth to survive and cover for when prospects bust. I had 9 examples on that list, you can't play 9 D's in a game. I wrote D prospect pool.

If we go with "safe" picks who should make it then atleast 3 of Krug-Zboril-O'Gara, Carlo, Colin should pay for us and play for us for a long time, and wouldn't be too surprised to see everyone of those up.
I don't care how our draft has been in the past, if you notice it has improved a lot lately, heinen/pasta examples from last years.

Krug, Krecji, Lucic, Bergeron, Marchand steals also, we've had talent but we sucked for awhile but now it's looking better.

Yes, we have to leave some room for the Ryan Buttons and others. I wanted Button to see some NHL action. I guess his style didn't suit the times when it came to it.

 

[LSCII]

Look, the B's D is worse this year than it was last year, and it was worse last year than the year before. There's no sugarcoating that.

To me the 1st essential question about what to do about that was to ask:

Do we want to allocate the cap to invest in Dougie Hamilton to be the anchor of our D over the next 5-7 years? I don't think he's a guy to do that with.

The 2nd question is Did they get enough for him? No. I criticize Dougie for not being great, but I'll admit he's very good. I don't think he'll ever be "the guy" on a top team, but nobody else on the B's D is that either (Chara is not that guy any more). They should have gotten more for him, but perhaps there is something to him not wanting to be here.

The 3rd question is: Do we deal Chara? If things aren't looking good at American Thanksgiving or in early 2016.. yup deal him.

This is a bridge year, and bridge years hurt, but the transition to the next core had to start sometime. It sucks that they've had 3 early 1st round picks in the last 10 years and none of them are on the team any more, but that's why Chia is gone.

My final question is: How much blame should Neely be getting for some of this?

Completely agree that they didn't get enough for Hamilton. In fact, it feels like they got bent over and took it dry. Him not wanting to be here is really more of a statement about what he thinks of Julien's system, IMO. I'm sure he and his family are looking at it and realizing that he's never going to get the chance here to realize his full offensive potential under Claude, and that by default was going to impact his potential for future earnings. And obviously if he didn't want to sign, he wasn't going to. Dealing him was fine, but my issue is the return was lacking. Badly.

As for Neely, so much of this crap fell under his watch. He blamed PC and acted like he was wearing a suit made out of teflon, but he was part of the problem. Him still being here and having even more power is scary to me.

 

[Fenway]

He's got a great resume and has lead an incredible life, which is great. Still doesn't mean his article comes off like a propaganda piece ghost written by one of the current members of the Bruins front office though...

Well

Clark IMHO wrote the best book on Bruins history back in 1998. It is available online for peanuts and well worth getting.

 

[DCHabitant]

We get Juolevi next year and our D group is set for 10+ years with that.
Zboril-Juolevi
Krug-Carlo
O'Gara-Colin Miller
Lauzon-Arnesson
Grzelcyk
With that we'd have one of the best if not the best D prospect pool in the league and we build around Zboril-(Juolevi).

Zboril sounds interesting D player and he should fit with us much better than Hamilton did, Jacub "strongest kid in the Q" Zboril.

But the question is how do we survive the next 4-5 years, we are missing a top pairing D and Chara has 3years left max on the 1st pairing, what's our 1st pairing going to look like in a few years, we want to be contenders soon and for a long time, we can't expect any of our prospects to be truly ready in that time, maybe Chychrun we could expect but that is a long shot.
I've said it before but right now I'd gladly take Yandle on a 4-5year deal and run with that, be potential longterm contenders.
Yandle+Senyshyn+Lauzon+JFK instead of Hamilton.

Big Buff would be a nice addition to your team, if you could find the cap space to sign him later this year when the Jets can't get a deal done. Or maybe when he goes the UFA route.

 

[GoBs]

Just did a quick look at Seidenberg's #s during that stretch. Yup he was bad too.

Those 1st 20 games:
1g, 1a -4 against non-Buff, Tor and Edm
1g, 3a +7 in those 5 games against Buff, Tor and Edm

But Krug was very good against the good teams:

2g, 4a, +5 in those same games that Hamilton was 1g,1a, -9

Krug didn't dominate as much as Hamilton against those 3 weak teams, but he was much better against Montreal and StL for example.

Now of course Hamilton probably got the tough match-ups while Krug was sheltered. But that's kind of the point:

Hamilton isn't a top notch 1st pairing guy. Put him up against good opposition and he gets eaten up. He can grow his game and get better and maybe some day can handle that assignment, and on a very deep Flames group he probably will be great.

But you can't build a D corps around him.

If Krug is in your top four the B's are in trouble. Yes you are correct he was sheltered. Also Krug at 3.25 million is allot of dough and what will he look for next year. I thought they should have moved him at the draft but again its only an opinion so take it easy out there.

 

[finchster]

Just to add onto Dr. Quincy's point, this is Hamilton's breakdown vs. the bottom 4 teams (Buffalo - 4 games; Toronto - 3 games; Arizona - 2 games; Edmonton - 2 games).

vs. Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton, Toronto

11 GP - 5 G, 12 A, 17 P, +14, 60.9 CF%

vs. the rest of the league

61 GP - 5 G, 20 A, 25 P, -17, 53.8 CF%

But these types of stats are meaningless in my opinion. Look at the same thing for Ovechkin, Crosby et al. Why are we surpised that good players score more points against non-playoff teams than playoff teams? We did the same thing to Kessel once he left town, "He scored X amount of points against non-playoff teams, Marc Savard spoon fed him everything etc."

Hamilton had a difficult year defensively, it was his first year where he was playing against top lines of the league and he was hit and miss.

But why is that a problem?

Unless your Ray Bourque, Doug Harvey, Drew Doughty, you simply do not play against or play well defensively aginst top players your first few years in the league.

What did league say about the defensive play of Chris Pronger, Lidstrom, Niedermayer, Chara, etc, when they first came in the NHL? Defence is harder to play because you need experience to play it well (Unless you are an all time great). Hamilton could've been a top pairing defencemen in the NHL, maybe he would need a no non-sense tough as nails partner but I think it was possible.

The Bruins again foolishly traded a top talent and got nothing good in return.

Kessel- He won't score anything without Savard (wrong)
Seguin- His stock was dropping, I think he is the next Daigle (wrong)
And now we are on to Hamilton, and apparently he isn't that good, but it will be 100% wrong again.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Just did a quick look at Seidenberg's #s during that stretch. Yup he was bad too.

Those 1st 20 games:
1g, 1a -4 against non-Buff, Tor and Edm
1g, 3a +7 in those 5 games against Buff, Tor and Edm

But Krug was very good against the good teams:

2g, 4a, +5 in those same games that Hamilton was 1g,1a, -9

Krug didn't dominate as much as Hamilton against those 3 weak teams, but he was much better against Montreal and StL for example.

Now of course Hamilton probably got the tough match-ups while Krug was sheltered. But that's kind of the point:

Hamilton isn't a top notch 1st pairing guy. Put him up against good opposition and he gets eaten up. He can grow his game and get better and maybe some day can handle that assignment, and on a very deep Flames group he probably will be great.

But you can't build a D corps around him.

Krug basically played against AHL'ers and 4th liners every night.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#
http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#
http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

Hamilton still outscored him in points/60 without getting over 60% of his shift starting in the offensive zone.

 

[Trap Jesus]

But these types of stats are meaningless in my opinion. Look at the same thing for Ovechkin, Crosby et al. Why are we surpised that good players score more points against non-playoff teams than playoff teams? We did the same thing to Kessel once he left town, "He scored X amount of points against non-playoff teams, Marc Savard spoon fed him everything etc."

Hamilton had a difficult year defensively, it was his first year where he was playing against top lines of the league and he was hit and miss.

But why is that a problem?

Unless your Ray Bourque, Doug Harvey, Drew Doughty, you simply do not play against or play well defensively aginst top players your first few years in the league.

What did league say about the defensive play of Chris Pronger, Lidstrom, Niedermayer, Chara, etc, when they first came in the NHL? Defence is harder to play because you need experience to play it well (Unless you are an all time great). Hamilton could've been a top pairing defencemen in the NHL, maybe he would need a no non-sense tough as nails partner but I think it was possible.

The Bruins again foolishly traded a top talent and got nothing good in return.

Kessel- He won't score anything without Savard (wrong)
Seguin- His stock was dropping, I think he is the next Daigle (wrong)
And now we are on to Hamilton, and apparently he isn't that good, but it will be 100% wrong again.

For the record, I was down on Hamilton all season. This has nothing to do with him getting traded.

This isn't even about his defense TBH. 40% of his points in 15% of his games is a pretty crazy split. Yeah, there's no point of reference here, but that just seems really out of whack. It's not like those are random teams either. It's the 4 worst teams in the league and the 4 worst teams in terms of GA/G (or at least Toronto is tied with Dallas, who Dougie actually had 2 goals and an assist against in his 2 games). Including Dallas, you're getting 70% of his goals and 48% of his points in 18% of his games vs. the clear bottom 5 defenses. I think you'd be hard pressed to find something similar to that.

I realize you don't agree with this approach so I'm basically just throwing numbers at you, but I think those statistics are crazy enough to make note of.

 

[finchster]

For the record, I was down on Hamilton all season. This has nothing to do with him getting traded.

This isn't even about his defense TBH. 40% of his points in 15% of his games is a pretty crazy split. Yeah, there's no point of reference here, but that just seems really out of whack. It's not like those are random teams either. It's the 4 worst teams in the league and the 4 worst teams in terms of GA/G (or at least Toronto is tied with Dallas, who Dougie actually had 2 goals and an assist against in his 2 games). Including Dallas, you're getting 70% of his goals and 48% of his points in 18% of his games vs. the clear bottom 5 defenses. I think you'd be hard pressed to find something similar to that.

I realize you don't agree with this approach so I'm basically just throwing numbers at you, but I think those statistics are crazy enough to make note of.

I understand what you are posting, but ask yourself has any player in the league made a career for himself by only scoring against bad teams?

The idea that a player 'only scores against bad teams' is one of the laziest detraction's a person can make. Every single player in the NHL scores more points against bad team, every single player. Subtracting those games do a huge disservice, every other player in the league has to play those games too. For fun lets try it with Crosby last year.

Crosby vs the worst four last year

Team|GP|G|A|P
Buffalo|3|0|8|8
Toronto|3|1|5|6
Edmonton|2|1|3|4
Arizona|2|2|3|5
Total|10|5|19|23

If you Subtract Crosby's games against the worst four in the NHL, he's not even a PPG player anymore. Again, Hamilton did score a higher percentage of his points against bad teams.But he had that opportunity because we had two tin cans in our division. Crosby was killing Buffalo and Toronto that year, I wonder how it would look if he played them in his division?

I called all of this after the Boychuk trade, I was/am a huge believer in Hamilton's talent, but I understand completely that a defencemen at 21 isn't a finished player. With Chara another year older and Seidenberg off a serious knee injury, putting Hamilton in a position at age 21 where he was responsible for shutting down top players every night was the wrong decision. And surprise, fans started getting down on the kid.

Unless you are one of the greatest defencemen to ever live, playing the type of minutes that Hamilton was playing at 21 is rare. I knew the kid would struggle. But I also knew from watching enough hockey that judging a defencemen at 21 is also the wrong decision. Otherwise guys like Pronger, Niedermayer, Zubov, etc would've all been bad defensive players for the rest of their career.

If the Bruins wanted to trade him, I could live with that. But getting the terrible return for him is simply unacceptable.

 

[Fossy21]

You're right that's my fault, the problem is there's people that actually say things like that with a straight face To put Dougie's 19 game stretch into perspective, if you extrapolate it over 82 games he would have scored 65 points (one less than Karlsson), with harder zone starts, tougher competition, and better possession numbers than the latter. He didn't just play like a number one defenseman, he played like a Norris contender.

And John Scott was on pace for an 82 goal season for a short stretch!

We all saw Hamilton make mindless,boneheaded unpressured errors. That's the big red flag for me. Mixed in with his great play is some dumfounding dumbness.

Pretty much

 

[DKH]

Well

Clark IMHO wrote the best book on Bruins history back in 1998. It is available online for peanuts and well worth getting.

I have it sitting on the coffee table and its fabulous but even the great Paul McCartney wrote that horrific Christmas song that makes me long for Kars for Kids. (Don't get me started on Ebony & Ivory or that song about someone at the door) this article by Booth though was equivalent to that trash. I'd have said 'Junk' but that's a great tune

 

[SToMper!]

I have it sitting on the coffee table and its fabulous but even the great Paul McCartney wrote that horrific Christmas song that makes me long for Kars for Kids. (Don't get me started on Ebony & Ivory or that song about someone at the door) this article by Booth though was equivalent to that trash. I'd have said 'Junk' but that's a great tune

Great McCartneyisms! I love Junk!

But so Ready for Hockey and these kids to make us forget about Hamilton!

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Completely agree that they didn't get enough for Hamilton. In fact, it feels like they got bent over and took it dry. Him not wanting to be here is really more of a statement about what he thinks of Julien's system, IMO. I'm sure he and his family are looking at it and realizing that he's never going to get the chance here to realize his full offensive potential under Claude, and that by default was going to impact his potential for future earnings. And obviously if he didn't want to sign, he wasn't going to. Dealing him was fine, but my issue is the return was lacking. Badly.

As for Neely, so much of this crap fell under his watch. He blamed PC and acted like he was wearing a suit made out of teflon, but he was part of the problem. Him still being here and having even more power is scary to me.

Lonnie, you would know more about being on the receiving end of this sort of thing more than anybody else here, so I will take your word for it...

I think they should have gotten a bit more for Dougie, but as usual you are exaggerating. Let's see how it looks in a couple of years. As far as Neely goes, he's the boss so he deserves some blame, but Chia was the GM, and was making the day to day decisions. If he's getting the credit for building a Cup winner, he should also get the blame for not maintaining it.

 

[DKH]

I'm in the Hamilton is a good player but won't be a great and like what they got for him, very much, best part is we will get to see who's right

 

[BNHL]

I'm in the Hamilton is a good player but won't be a great and like what they got for him, very much, best part is we will get to see who's right

Me too,and will produce some head scratching plays both good and bad.